Episode Twelve – Quora Questions on Physics

But, in fact, all of those “universes” are in fact part of the same “everything that exists”. They are just different observable regions of the same universe.

This is my main objection to the concept of “multiverse”. You cannot have more than one of “everything that exists”. By definition everything is everything.

I think that whatever happens to the state of matter in our “universe”, whether the galaxies go away or all the stars burn out, there will always be something that exists.

What form that takes, I could not say. Perhaps if someone in billions of years was to look out into space, they would not see stars and planets as we know them, who knows. Perhaps no living entities will be there to do so.

But, that does not mean that there will be nothing that exists. Something will exist. There is no alternative to existence, to something existing in some form.

So, in that sense, the universe is eternal, as whatever exists, exists. So, there is always some “totality of existence”.

No. But, perhaps this is a good chance to explain the issue of particle-wave duality.

When you say “there is a water” wave, what are you referring to? Which physically existent entities are you talking about?

For that matter, what are waves?

We will start by answering the latter question.

A wave is a relational concept. It refers to the cyclical motion of something or some other cyclical change in one of its other properties. In other words, it is simply an abstraction which identifies certain patterns in somethings behavior.

But, does a wave physically exist? No. It is an abstraction, nothing more.

This “wave of water” is a bunch of water molecules arranged in a pattern we call a “wave”.

Ah, what about water waves, they exist, right? The water molecules certainly do. They are arranged in a certain pattern and we call that pattern a “wave”. But, the wave is an abstraction. What exists is the water.

It is similar if you look at things on a quantum scale. If you observe a wave, then you are observing something which is waving.

Ah, you say, but we observe that a photon (or an electron or what have you) actually is a wave. Just look at the double-slit experiment.

But, that is not the case. If you observe a wave, then you observe something waving. A wave is not a form of matter, nor do entities themselves physically exist in the form of waves. As waves are abstractions, not a form of existence.

Whenever you see a wave, you are seeing something waving. That is, something exhibiting some kind of wave behavior.

What does this have to do with the question? Well, something. Nothing is an example of particle-wave duality. As nothing that physically exists is a wave, only something that waves, then nothing can be a particle and a wave at the same time.

I would say that it is virtually non-existent. He does not really understand much of what quantum physics actually says.

He likes repeating phrases such as “quantum-leap” or “discontinuity” without having very much understanding of what such concepts mean in quantum physics.

Now, granted, those ideas can be very difficult for one to get their head around. So, if it was just that he did not use them very precisely, I think we could cut him some slack.

But, he uses them in a very sloppy, ignorant fashion that it is clear that he has made very little effort to understand what the ideas are supposed to mean.

This is complicated by the fact that he almost never corrects his mistakes, no matter how many times he is corrected.

But, what should we expect? Clearly, he is not an honest person. He has no interest in reality nor understanding ideas. He is more interested in using confusing terms in order to make himself seem smart so that he can fleece people out of money.

This wand is about as effective as Chopra’s healing scams.

Why does he use so much quantum quackery? Because there is a lot of really difficult to grasp stuff in this part of physics.

But, more than that. There is a lot of nonsense. Such as particle-wave duality, the idea of things being in indeterminate states, quantum leaps and the like.

I know this is a very unpopular opinion in most circles: But any rational person should reject many of the interpretations offered in much of mainstream quantum physics.

Why? Because they are nonsense. And they help to undermine the credibility of science.

How is that? Well, if I am right and quantum physics has a lot of nonsense in it, then it is easy for people like Chopra to use it to try to make their own nonsense sound credible.

We are going to briefly cover time in episode sixteen of the podcast, where we talk about space and time. This will be out around the 25th of March.

But, I can somewhat address your question now:

We do not really think very much about “quantum time”. As far as we are concerned, time is simply a relational concept.

What do we mean by that? We mean that time is a concept, it is a measurement of change. It is not a dimension or part of the universe. It simply measures change in things.

We do not agree that Einstein or anyone else has shown that time is a dimension or that is part of the universe or that time is affected by speed. If it is a concept, how could it be, that makes no sense?

Your video talks about the Arrow of Time. Well, if that concept is to have any validity, surely it refers to causality. Things happen the way they do because things have to act according to their nature.

Broken glasses do not leap up and reassemble themselves. Gases do not become more orderly and bunch into a small area. Why? Because in both cases it would violate the nature of the broken cup or the gas to act in such a way. But, not because of some mysterious “Arrow of Time” which somehow dictates how they must act.

Things do not generally happen in the reverse order that we observe, because of the nature of the entities. Unless of course, it is in the nature of the entities to act that way in a given context.

We do not have to resort to entropy or “Arrows of Time” to explain this kind of thing. Or indeed anything to do with time at all. We just have to know which actions are consistent with the nature of the entities involved.